My Library _passes_ TaskSpeed in IE < 7
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: A good opportunity to investment
Next: FAQ Topic - Why does framename.print() not print the correct frame in IE? (2010-02-19)
From: S.T. on 23 Feb 2010 17:06 On 2/23/2010 12:32 PM, David Mark wrote: > You don't get it at all. Did you look at that example I showed you. > Did you consider it lackluster because it only had two columns? How > many columns do you think are wise? And BTW, it adjusts to one column > in most older mobile devices. > > Here it is again:- > > http://www.hartkelaw.net/ > > Other than it is waiting for a real logo and some real content, what do > you find "lackluster" about that? Seriously? We're seriously off-topic but I'll play. On an iPhone 3G I have to pinch and pull until I set the just the left column in the viewport in order to possibly read copy without having to scroll left-and-right on every line, and at that zoom it's still a struggle to read... and my eyes aren't that bad yet. If I then want to use the right-hand navigation I need to scroll over to the right, where I have to pull to zoom in further to possibly read the link text which is inexplicably set at 3/4's of browser default, a very odd design choice for primary navigation. If I want to go back to the main text it's another scroll and zoom correction. This is not what I would call a mobile-friendly site. If one is willing to jump through hoops, it's mobile-accessible. And that's a big "IF". If mobile is actually relevant, embrace it. Cater to what a mobile user wants, strip out the extraneous and ensure it's easy at very narrow widths. That means it's own site: www.yahoo.com -> m.yahoo.com www.papajohns.com -> mobile.papajohns.com www.digg.com -> m.digg.com If mobile REALLY matters to a business, apps on the various dominant platforms that solve specific tasks for the mobile user are the way to go. PS: On a more traditional monitor with the browser maximized, the site's main text is borderline unreadable. Seriously... hop on a 1600px+ width monitor, maximize the browser and try and read the privacy policy page. It's a struggle to pull the eye across ~30 words to the beginning of the next line. Aim for 12-14 words per column (like Usenet) without forcing the user to resize his browser to do so. At least we agree on XHTML.
From: David Mark on 23 Feb 2010 17:33 S.T. wrote: > On 2/23/2010 12:32 PM, David Mark wrote: >> You don't get it at all. Did you look at that example I showed you. >> Did you consider it lackluster because it only had two columns? How >> many columns do you think are wise? And BTW, it adjusts to one column >> in most older mobile devices. >> >> Here it is again:- >> >> http://www.hartkelaw.net/ >> >> Other than it is waiting for a real logo and some real content, what do >> you find "lackluster" about that? > > Seriously? We're seriously off-topic but I'll play. > > On an iPhone 3G I have to pinch and pull until I set the just the left > column in the viewport in order to possibly read copy without having to > scroll left-and-right on every line, and at that zoom it's still a > struggle to read... and my eyes aren't that bad yet. Or you could just close the second column. The fluid layout takes care of the rest, but I don't remember what the minimum width is set to, so it may need a slight adjustment to avoid horizontal scrolling in those devices. It was written before these full-featured mobile browsers were an issue, so perhaps I need to make some adjustments to the layout. Still, there's no way it should require a separate site. I did test it in lots of phones at the time and the handheld style sheets made it work perfectly as a single-column layout in every one of them. These were displays that had no shot at working with multiple columns. Clearly the game has changed a bit since then and whenever my client gets their content together I will test on iPhones/iPods/etc and adjust as necessary (but won't create a whole new site). > > If I then want to use the right-hand navigation I need to scroll over to > the right, where I have to pull to zoom in further to possibly read the > link text which is inexplicably set at 3/4's of browser default, a very > odd design choice for primary navigation. If I want to go back to the > main text it's another scroll and zoom correction. I agree that 75% is too small. The site has been in a holding pattern for years. I'm sure I will adjust the grid whenever I get some real content to put into it. Didn't look particularly bad in anything I tested two years ago, but I didn't realize I had left the navigation text so small. Still, adjusting something like that does not require a second site (in fact 75% on the desktop is not ideal either). > > This is not what I would call a mobile-friendly site. If one is willing > to jump through hoops, it's mobile-accessible. And that's a big "IF". As mentioned, at the time it was written, it was a _very_ mobile friendly site (one of the few such examples out there AFAIK). These newer mobile devices are closer to a desktop experience, so they ignore handheld style sheets. And I'd venture it is far closer to friendly in iPhones - for example - than the typical Website. It won't take a whole new site to bridge the gap, that much is for sure. > > If mobile is actually relevant, embrace it. Cater to what a mobile user > wants, strip out the extraneous and ensure it's easy at very narrow > widths. That means it's own site: > > www.yahoo.com -> m.yahoo.com > www.papajohns.com -> mobile.papajohns.com > www.digg.com -> m.digg.com Or just adjust the font sizes a bit. Making a whole new site seems a hard way to go. ;) > > If mobile REALLY matters to a business, apps on the various dominant > platforms that solve specific tasks for the mobile user are the way to go. That's beside the point. They can still hit your Website with the browser. > > PS: On a more traditional monitor with the browser maximized, the site's > main text is borderline unreadable. I don't consider long lines to be ideal, but I don't think they are at all unreadable. > Seriously... hop on a 1600px+ width > monitor, maximize the browser and try and read the privacy policy page. > It's a struggle to pull the eye across ~30 words to the beginning of the > next line. Aim for 12-14 words per column (like Usenet) without forcing > the user to resize his browser to do so. Yes, I know, it needs a max-width rule for the paragraphs. > > At least we agree on XHTML. > It's a dead issue on the Web and has been for years.
From: Matt Kruse on 23 Feb 2010 17:38 On Feb 23, 2:32 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > That's crazy. Virtually everyone carries a mobile browser these days Where is your evidence? I would guess that the number of people who access the web via mobile device is in the single-digit percentages. > Mobile browsers are important right now (and have been for years). They are somewhat important, to some people. Certainly not a priority for most. Yet. Matt Kruse
From: Matt Kruse on 23 Feb 2010 17:50 On Feb 22, 9:12 pm, Andrew Poulos <ap_p...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I want an argument where one > side presents a premise drawn on various facts (which David has done) > and the other side counters the premise with facts of their own (which > no one appears to have done). Done many, many times. And unilaterally, unjustifiably dismissed every time by DM. DM has answers for people who fit exactly within the constraints that he places on how software should be written. Unfortunately, most of the development world finds themselves in very different situations, where his answers don't fit. And then he screams louder and stomps his feet because no one will listen to him. He reminds me of the linux zealots who just can't understand how _anyone_ could continue using Windows, who constantly reminds everyone how broken Windows is, who blogs about its problems and errors, and who designs the coolest, most awesome software for linux users but doesn't understand why it hasn't revolutionized the world yet. The fact is, most people use Windows. And if you don't understand why, and you refuse to understand why, and you are incapable of understanding all the factors that go into the decision, and you stubbornly insist that everyone is wrong and should switch to linux immediately, then you're going to continue preaching your sermon to an empty church. And you're going to continue having little if any impact on the world around you. Which is exactly where DM finds himself. And yet he still can't quite figure out why. Question: If DM has the answer that most people should be looking for, why aren't most people following his suggestions? Answer: Because he doesn't understand what most people are looking for, and doesn't have a real answer for those people anyway. IMO, Matt Kruse
From: David Mark on 23 Feb 2010 17:49
Matt Kruse wrote: > On Feb 23, 2:32 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> That's crazy. Virtually everyone carries a mobile browser these days > > Where is your evidence? I would guess that the number of people who > access the web via mobile device is in the single-digit percentages. We had this discussion years ago. Virtually everybody has a phone. Virtually all phones have browsers (and have for years). So re-read what I said as you seem to be responding to something other point. And so what if only single digit percentages use the browsers regularly? And that's just a guess on your part anyway. > >> Mobile browsers are important right now (and have been for years). > > They are somewhat important, to some people. Certainly not a priority > for most. Yet. > But, as usual, you don't get it. Your site doesn't have to be _unusable_ (as many are) in any browser (tiny or not). If you use jQuery, many mobile devices will refuse to load the page as the assets are too large (at least that was my experience with them a couple of years back). The latest and greatest mobile devices (e.g. iPhones) won't _cache_ jQuery, which is a self-imposed disaster, particularly when you know you are only utilizing a tiny percentage of the script. And then there is the fact that most mobile browsers are limited in their capabilities, so you have to use progressive enhancement, which jQuery makes impossible by "smoothing over" the important details about the environment (i.e. providing a static API that blows up in environments that it isn't capable of handling). And, as for the "yet" bit. Do you plan to go back and re-write every site you ever made whenever you feel like mobile "matters?" Seems like a short-sighted approach and will be very hard on your clients' wallets. |